Wait for Broadcast Job

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the blocking behavior, the return shape ({ done, state, job } and timeout reason), error cases (401/403 wrong auth, 404 unknown jobId), and the requirement that auth match the enqueue step. These go beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent a full picture of side effects and failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers return, auth, and errors in a compact format. It avoids fluff, but the density of information (auth modes, errors) makes it slightly dense; still, every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly more structured but remains effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: the blocking condition, return format, timeout behavior, required prerequisites (jobId), auth constraints, and error responses. It also references the companion enqueue tool. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., jobId, appId, timeoutMs, intervalMs with defaults). The description adds minimal new semantics beyond the schema—only reiterating that jobId comes from the enqueue tool and that appId is for B2B mode. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage; the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Block until a broadcast job reaches a terminal state...' and specifies the resource (broadcast job). It also distinguishes itself as a polling wrapper around ethora-chats-broadcast-job-v2, making its role distinct from the enqueue tool and other wait tools. The verb 'Block' and the terminal state condition are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: it requires a jobId from the enqueue tool and specifies auth requirements. It implies when to use it (after enqueuing a broadcast job) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when not to use it or compare to ethora-wait-users-batch-job-v2). Still, the prerequisites and the wrapper relationship provide adequate guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.